Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (70162)	5/22/2016 9:16:32 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86352

dear anonymous fountain of bovine excrement eRICO, the fact that CO2 absorbs some wavelengths is not disputed as a fact. But the speculation that applying formula of absorption and emission of energy for a mixed gas the same way one does for a surface has never been demonstrated and is not a fact. That so many are too stupid to see this simple fact does not bother me. But in that many are simply choosing to lie too themselves and children make them assholes. The entire spectrum of the AGW argument is the supposition above. The reality that makes that supposition idiotic is below. The fact that there are hundreds of H20 molecules for every CO2 and the few places where CO2 does absorb H20 also has some absorption suggests there is not the supposed energy too be absorbed. In fact within a few feet there is none to be absorbed. At so reradiation, there CO2 is 4 parts in 10,000 and thus most all it's energy absorbed is conducted to the other 99.996% of the air for readmission. And anyone who is at all understanding of black body emissions knows that solids emit a thousand fold of gases and H20 forms solids on the seeds of dust. Those solids are what re-emit all energy to space and back to earth. The vast majority of Climate science is in modeling and not in measurement or observation. The models cannot hindcast at all. The models cannot duplicate any observed ocean current or jet stream variations that dramatically effect weather. The models are too ignorance of the real world forces at work and only rely on your facts of century old science speculations. The abject science ignorance required to swallow AGW is quite amusing. have a nice day.

To: Eric who wrote (70162)	5/22/2016 10:17:30 AM
From: teevee	2 Recommendations Recommended By lightshipsailor Thomas A Watson Respond to of 86352

Eric, You obviously don't understand what science is. It surely isn't building models that can't accurately hind cast AND forecast changes in temperature. A lot of people make their living by applying for grants to play on their computers and have the temerity to call it "science". Repeatedly stating that global warming is caused by burning fossil fuels doesn't make it true. There is no proof or evidence that burning fossil fuels causes global warming, so there must be other reasons and motivations to repeatedly state something that is not a fact or true, and none of them good.....and then there are the legions of useful idiots whose minds are made up, apparently with no ability for rational thought and discourse.